Flightglobal reports that Airbus is nearing design freeze for the A350-1000. The design team has opted for a slightly larger wing, to be achieved through a trailing-edge extension. The wing will also be repositioned by one frame.

Remarkable in this article is also that the A350-1000 is suddenly referred to as a 369-seater. Thus far, it was always a "350-seater" (and it still is on Airbus' website). But the 350-seat specification always seemed disproportionately low relative to the much shorter -900 variant.

I'm curious to see whether Airbus will now release performance data in 369-seat configuration...

Good signs so far. Of course what everyone is waiting for is the performance data. It seems that the a350-1000 is the most eagerly awaited airline of it's time. Boeing are on hold till they know what it'll do, as are the airlines before they order. There can be no slip ups with this variant.

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 1):Good signs so far. Of course what everyone is waiting for is the performance data. It seems that the a350-1000 is the most eagerly awaited airline of it's time. Boeing are on hold till they know what it'll do, as are the airlines before they order. There can be no slip ups with this variant.

Agreed, Airbus seemingly decided to take no compromises and build a strong XWB subfamily (A350-1000, A350-900R and A350-900F) optimized for long heavy flights from hot places (to/from Asia).

It seems to offer similar performance to the succesfull Boeing 777-300ER at much lower OEW/Installed power. Boeing will have to react now & they will. GE will play no small role.

Quoting keesje (Reply 3):It seems to offer similar performance to the succesfull Boeing 777-300ER at much lower OEW/Installed power.

I'm not technically-minded (though I did change a tyre on my car once), so I'll confess that I'm still a bit confused. Perhaps someone can explain it in simple terms.

As I understand it, the A350-1000 and 777-300ER are exactly the same length and have exactly the same wingspan. The 777 has a slightly wider fuselage and is heavier. It can carry more fuel and, if I remember rightly, haul more cargo. Both planes have much the same range.

The biggest difference is the engines. The GE90-115 is much more powerful than the Trent XWB.

Airbus seems to be designing a plane that can do pretty much what the 777-300ER can do but is lighter and more economical. (Have I got that right?)

Airbus's critics counter that the 777-300ER is actually more capable than the proposed A350-1000 even now and will be made more so. (Correct?)

In my mind I see the 777 as being conceptually 'bigger' and 'heavier' and potentially more capable but perhaps only at the margin (?). I'm think of a situation something like the 757-200 vs. A321. The 757 can carry more people further but if you don't need that ability then the A321 can do most of the 757's missions more efficiently. Hence, British Airways, for example, are now flying A321s where once they flew 757s.

Is that where the A350-1000 is going to find its niche? Not trying to do everything a 77W can do but doing 80% of it more efficiently?

(I really would like those with more technical knowledge than I have to tell me ifI'm getting warm.)

Quoting PM (Reply 8):Not trying to do everything a 77W can do but doing 80% of it more efficiently?

sums it up nery nicely. And quite a lot more efficiently than the current 77W.

My main concern, and people will probably get tired of me repeating it over and over again: will they pull off EIS of within 2,5 years of the -900? With another variant (the -800) in between as well? Their resources are constrained as it is, and sure, the A380 and probably A400 situations will be resolved in a few years, but still...

which sounds like trying to develop the A343 and A346 (or 77E and 77W) almost parallel.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm wondering how realistic their timeframe is. Boeing had to shelve the 787-3 (which didn't seem more complicated to develop than Airbus has to do with the A358), in order to get the 787-9 in the air 3 years after the 788. Time will tell I guess.

Quoting PM (Reply 8): my mind I see the 777 as being conceptually 'bigger' and 'heavier' and potentially more capable but perhaps only at the margin (?). I'm think of a situation something like the 757-200 vs. A321. The 757 can carry more people further but if you don't need that ability then the A321 can do most of the 757's missions more efficiently. Hence, British Airways, for example, are now flying A321s where once they flew 757s.

I know nothing more than you, and I get a similar sense from the programs. I think the key difference between the 777/3510 comparison and the 752/321 version is cargo. That might be what ultimately gives the 777 an edge that the 752 would not have had. Comparatively speaking. At 2am.

I think the perception that the 772 is 'old tech' in comparison to the 350-1000 will ultimately lead to the 787-10. I suspect Boeing will have more luck closing the gap with the 77W, and I think a stretch of that is probably in the cards.

A longer 77W, (especially if they can keep the weight down), would be really tough to beat.

Perhaps one wing, (with appropriate mods), can be used for the -10 and 777ng's. The extra width of the 777 will always give it something of an advantage under the right circumstances.

Regardless, perception more than anything else is going to force Boeing's hand to match the 350 models with 787's, not 777's.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):Regardless, perception more than anything else is going to force Boeing's hand to match the 350 models with 787's, not 777's.

Perception only exists in ideological groups lke A.net - I'm very sure the decision makers at airlines know how to calculate what an investment means, which risks are associated, etc. Maybe not all, those that only have the purpose to wash oil billions into deep private pockets will continue to spread perceptions very loud.

Quoting PM (Reply 8):Is that where the A350-1000 is going to find its niche? Not trying to do everything a 77W can do but doing 80% of it more efficiently?

As the A350XWB series is the Airbus replacement for the A340 series, I think they would prefer to think that the A350-1000 can do everything the A340-600 can do, however it is only 60,000 - 80,000 kg lighter.

We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar

Quoting PM (Reply 8):Is that where the A350-1000 is going to find its niche? Not trying to do everything a 77W can do but doing 80% of it more efficiently?

Nice posts PM. While we have not seen the performance data yet, I think it is safe to say that percentage might be around 90%. Cargo and number of passengers in a less comfortabel 10 abreast seating would still be the points where the B77W (revised or not) could have the advantage.

I see that the -1000 still only has four exits on each side, which limits it to 440pax. This should only be a limitation for charter and low-cost carriers. The hypothetical -1100 would surely need a fifth exit.

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 21):I see that the -1000 still only has four exits on each side, which limits it to 440pax. This should only be a limitation for charter and low-cost carriers. The hypothetical -1100 would surely need a fifth exit.

These top of the range configurations tend to be a limit that network carriers seldom tend to use. For example, Qatar Airways current A346 comfiguration stands at 266 passengers. I assume with increased capabilities and as the A350 launch customer and one of the main clients, QR could draw the line of capacity a bit higher. They seem to be quite happy with the development of the programme so far. On the other hand in these days it is even difficult to spot a B77W configured at full capacity nearing the 400 pax tag. As you mention this could only be a handicap when later versions are introduced as charters or high-density conf. for LCC which I fail to see happening too soon.